View Topic

Can someone please show what changes are being made to the law?  It will be a bit easier to read :-/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

We're completely rewriting the laws governing the Storting.

We're completely rewriting the laws governing the Storting.

I know but what I am asking is if someone can please highlight what is being amended compared to the current version

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

We're completely rewriting the laws governing the Storting.

I know but what I am asking is if someone can please highlight what is being amended compared to the current version

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

The Storting will be an open assembly instead of a bicameral legislature.  When Laurentus says that it's "completely rewriting the laws governing the Storting", he means completely.

We're completely rewriting the laws governing the Storting.

I know but what I am asking is if someone can please highlight what is being amended compared to the current version

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Everything.

I'm teetering on changing my vote to NAY, although THIS POST IS NOT ME DOING SO. Yet.

If I'm honest, a change from a bicameral legislative to an open assembly involving all citizens who sign up for the forums is a big one and represents a complete shift away from how things have been done here since the region was established. What we have now has worked... but obviously enough people want a change. This is good, and I am in favour of the open assembly for various reasons, but I know that some aren't.

What I want, therefore, is for those who object to this change to VOICE THEIR REASONS, rather than simply bowing out and letting the region go where it wants to. We owe it to ourselves and our future citizens to do the best we can with this legislation, and letting it pass merely because that's what everyone else wants is no good reason not to solve all the problems with this Act now before it goes into operation.

So, if anyone here has complaints, if anyone here dislikes Open Assemblies and has good reason to do so, I'm asking you to vote NAY rather than abstain and explain your reasoning for doing so. There is no point going along with the majority simply because it seems too much effort to do anything differently. We will suffer for that in the future with a shoddily and hastily put together legislative, and that is not what Wintreath wants or needs.

EDIT: Please note this isn't a personal attack - I'm simply asking that we come together and work out all the minor errors this Act might contain, work to close any loopholes we might have overlooked and take on board criticism for Open Assemblies in an attempt to produce an outcome that not only works well for everyone involved but avoids the pitfalls such an Assembly might fall into in the future.

I've also heard that several individuals have felt somewhat browbeaten by proponents of this act, to the point of being called "blind" and feeling like they no longer want to take part in the legislative process of the region at all. I won't name names, but I have to say I am very disappointed in this behaviour.

Just because YOU support something does not mean EVERYONE has to, nor does it mean YOUR reasons will make sense to EVERYONE ELSE. Debate and dissent are vital parts of the political process, and shouting down anyone who might think differently to you shows a lack of maturity in how people handle discussion in the region.

Nuff said.

I agree on this.

The only reason I'm changing my vote to Abstain is because I do support this move...however, I understand that people are also against it, and I want to step back and let others decide the fate of this ratification.

However, if you're against this act completely, please don't abstain.  There's nothing wrong with saying "Nay" if you're against it, and we would really like to hear why you feel that way.  Everyone is entitled to vote the way they really feel, and if you don't support this, then that's completely your decision.  Don't bow out because it's gaining support from others...sometimes your reasoning for being against it may strike a chord and get some of the other supporters to understand your reasoning.

Please voice your concerns here:

http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=3446.msg67368#msg67368

to separate the comments thread from the voting thread.

I voted abstain because I legitimately don't have a preference. I'm fine with trying open assemblies, and I'm fine with the current system. If I hadn't been fine, I would have voiced my dissent long before now.

Nor would you have written a bill about it

I feel like you're one of the only people who's even able/encouraged to abstain.

But yeah, I'm worried that the Underhusen has been so absorbed by passing the bill that we've blinded ourselves into thinking that the majority of the public supported it. Or at least there was some kind of pro-open-assembly sentiment at one point, and we went with it too heavily and ignored when it died down.

I voted abstain because I legitimately don't have a preference. I'm fine with trying open assemblies, and I'm fine with the current system. If I hadn't been fine, I would have voiced my dissent long before now.

It's not you I'm referring to - more the people in the Overhusen and others I've spoken to in the IRC who still have issues with the Act but were going to let it slide due to the weight of public opinion being against them (something which worries me, as it's indicative of the browbeating I referenced in my previous post in some cases).

Beyond that, I am now officially changing my vote to NAY

Nor would you have written a bill about it

I feel like you're one of the only people who's even able/encouraged to abstain.

But yeah, I'm worried that the Underhusen has been so absorbed by passing the bill that we've blinded ourselves into thinking that the majority of the public supported it. Or at least there was some kind of pro-open-assembly sentiment at one point, and we went with it too heavily and ignored when it died down.

I think anyone who is neutral on it is encouraged to abstain, just as those who are very much in support or very much against are encouraged to vote the way they feel without judgment.  This system is about people being able to vote the way they choose without being criticized for it.

And there's nothing wrong with the UH being all for this...after all, the UH is a body that represents the people of Wintreath, and opening things up to an OA is a tremendous idea for that reasoning.

However, this is an act that we don't want to pass prematurely, as it's something that affects ALL of Wintreath in a monumental way.  This is an act where we need to sit down, and see why people feel the way they do if they're against it, and really listen to them...because this is an act that I want to see most of, if not ALL of Wintreath genuinely standing behind.

It'd be a horrible precedent to pass an act this monumental if there are many people that are against it.

The current system is definitely not fine. The fact that so many people despise it proves that much.

That said, the only reason I'm for this Act is because it's the one that has attracted the most support, and it does solve the problem we have of such an overly political bicameral legislature in a region that is attractive precisely because it doesn't encourage petty politics.

Were it up to me, we'd leave all legislative matters up to a Patrician caste, and give the monarch absolute veto powers. Obviously, that's not everyone's cup of tea, so I'm compromising for something else I can actually live with.

I haven't been particularly involved in this regions politics, but I do know that when I was in Ainur and we switched to an open assembly, politics just dried up, perhaps it was the people in the region, perhaps it was the way it was presented, but the Open Assembly in Ainur became nothing more then an election for the empty position of speaker and failed to represent the people. This is why I vote nay.

The same could be said of the current situation with the UH.

I feel people are missing the point of this act. It's not meant to bring more activity necessarily -- it's meant to solve the problems of the UH by completely removing it. If there is no political activity, then that's ok because only one or two people will be elected every three months rather than a whole slew of people every two for no reason.

And Laurentus is right; if we don't go forward with this, we need to come up with something better than what we currently have, as it's just not working.

I haven't been particularly involved in this regions politics, but I do know that when I was in Ainur and we switched to an open assembly, politics just dried up, perhaps it was the people in the region, perhaps it was the way it was presented, but the Open Assembly in Ainur became nothing more then an election for the empty position of speaker and failed to represent the people. This is why I vote nay.

The same could be said of the current situation with the UH.

I feel people are missing the point of this act. It's not meant to bring more activity necessarily -- it's meant to solve the problems of the UH by completely removing it. If there is no political activity, then that's ok because only one or two people will be elected every three months rather than a whole slew of people every two for no reason.

And Laurentus is right; if we don't go forward with this, we need to come up with something better than what we currently have, as it's just not working.

Well yes and no.  The original point of deciding to go the OA route WAS because of activity.  It was considered because the UH had been so dreadfully inactive, that we wanted to open it up.